Hypocrisy alive and well at the UN

to me it seems obvious that the attention israel gets is way out of proportion to its "crimes"....

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1134473177556


The UN is in session again and a number of resolutions have been on the table. An important one dealt with human rights abuses in Darfur. But, thanks to Sudan's many allies, this resolution was expected to be defeated and removed from the agenda.
On the table were also 10 resolutions condemning Israel for human rights abuses. All of them were expected to be passed by the General Assembly.
Welcome to a typical year at the United Nations.

take, for example, the UN Commission on Human Rights. In the past two years, Israel has had 101 human rights resolutions passed against it.
Of course, there are other human rights violators on the list. Let's see: Iran is a well-known human rights violator. It has had two resolutions passed against it. Syria is another. Well, it merited one resolution. Saudi Arabia is another offender, known for amputations, stonings, intolerance toward other religions, political repression, discrimination and torture. However, all this doesn't seem to bother the rights commission too much — Saudi Arabia hasn't merited any resolutions

:beer:

What a horrible revelation. Not to say it comes as much of a surprise. Maybe revelation is the wrong word.

And people have the nerve write off complaints of the UN holding a double-standard against Israel. Thanks for posting this. It's not nice, but knowledge is power, they say...

The problem with the UN is that it is only an assortment of nations, each with their own interests, biases, and agendas. Just because a majority of nations hold a certain bias does not make that belief correct, but international law (or legitimacy, at any rate) seems to assume the opposite. This doesn't seem like a very good basis for judging international events; after all, most people in the short-lived CSA were presumably pro-slavery. That doesn't mean slavery was good as much as it means people in that culture were either selfish, brainwashed, and/or racist.

So now the UN deadlocks over Darfur, because powerful countries have interests in the mineral wealth and other parties don't want to take the responsibility of stopping genocide, and no one even considers the day-to-day injustices done to Azerbaijani refugees (by there own goverment as much as by the Armenians), but the general assembly can still agree on one thing. Israel is wrong.

I guess this is a gift from Israel to the world: international unity. I guess we owe Israel some thanks for that...

By the way, I'm trying to start an interactive blog on Israel- the conflict, the culture, politics, poverty, and anything else Israeli, partially because it interests me and partly because I'm trying to make some money from Amazon Associates program and Google Adsense to pay for college. Stop by and see what you think. If you'd like to help me design it, I'd love some input. (This applies for all people who might read this.)

The address is israelforum.blogspot.com

Wouldn't it make more sense to actually go visit the UN site and take a look for yrself, rather than believe everything some ranting idiot in some Canadian rag says? There were quite a few ommissions and innaccuracies in that article. He conveniently forgot to mention that Israel voted against the resolution calling for protection of Palestinian children. He labels all resolutions concerning the situation in the Middle East to be attempts to destroy Israel. Would you like to go through the resolutions and point out where the attempts to destroy Israel are?



Violet...

Iran is a well-known human rights violator. It has had two resolutions passed against it. Syria is another. Well, it merited one resolution. Saudi Arabia is another offender, known for amputations, stonings, intolerance toward other religions, political repression, discrimination and torture. However, all this doesn't seem to bother the rights commission too much — Saudi Arabia hasn't merited any resolutions

btw, I did just check the SC site, and there's been quite a few resolutions concerning Darfur this year, all condemning violations of human rights...

Violet...

and found stuff "like this"

A draft resolution which could have denounced the killings and the ethnic cleansing that is still taking place in Darfur was frustrated by developing countries including almost all Islamic and African states.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/sudan/2004/1202meaningless.htm

nothing that comes close to the attention nor resources spent on the israeli/palestenian conflict..yet the numbers of dead number in the 100s of thousands, villages wiped out, rapes to numerous to count, etc

(how many rapes by IDF soldiers?..how many villages wiped out in the intifadas?.....the violence is probably less than 1% than that of whats happening in Darfur), yet the UN resources applied......

I could be wrong, but I think the Toronto Star qualifies as a legitimate news source, doesn't it? Why do you call it a "rag?"

The fact that Israel voted against the resolution protecting Palestinian children is irrelevant (though not good.) All those countries who voted for protecting Palestinian children didn't vote for protecting Israeli children. They didn't even support voting on it.

You say "He labels all resolutions concerning the situation in the Middle East to be attempts to destroy Israel."

Once again, I think you're dodging the main issue. The UN makes a disproportionate number of resolutions against Israel while ignoring atrocities like Sudan. That's just weird, and indicates that there is something wrong with the nature of the General Assembly. Note: The author states that there is nothing wrong with legitimate criticism of Israel. But can you defend them making no resolutions against Sudan, but nine against Israel. How about 18 against Israel, four against the rest of the world. Do you think it's wrong to not condemn the deaths of Israeli children? If you cannot defend these, then what do you think the presence of these conditions signifies about the UN General Assembly.

For all I know it's every bit as legitimate a news source as the Australian, which is also a rag...

No, the fact that Israel did vote against the resolution protecting Palestinian children is definately not irrelevent. Why is it that you consider it irrelevent when Israel does it but totally relevent when any other country does it?

Actually, there's no dodging the issue when I point out exactly what the author said in the article. Dodging would be pretending it wasn't said...

I'm not at all sure why yr so concerned about the General Assembly. None of the resolutions produced there are binding, and as I've said before, it's just a place for countries to make noise and lots of paperwork. It's what happens in the Security Council that's where the real action is. Want to talk about the supposed lack of resolutions concerning Darfur there?

btw, I think it's wrong not to condemn the deaths of any children, which is why you won't find me saying it's irrelevant that Israel voted against a resolution calling for the protection of Palestinian children...

Violet...

Point One: Back up your talk. Why do you consider the Toronto Star a Rag?

Point Two: Israel's hypocracy is well-documented. It's a state, for crying out loud, their all hypocritical. The GA is not a state. Did they not support Israel's resolution because Israel didn't support the Palestinian one?

Point Three: You still haven't answered my question. Why does the GA (in your opinion) obsess about Israel, but practically ignore the rest of the world?

I'd appreciate any answers to points 1 and 3 are welcome.

website. Best of luck with it.

I would not be surprised if it also suggested it was the recipient of "unfair" scrutiny by the UN Commission on Human Rights. It may have had to do 1) with its actual record of human rights at the time. 2) South Africa had such powerful friends (US and Israel, among others), and by highlighting its human rights abuses, it would make a difference. 3) Its whole premise, that a land was to be reserved for its colonizers and that the rights of its indigenous population was to be secondary was so repugnant to most of the world's population.

Could it be that this may explain what is happening here? That all this hand-wringing about the complaints of not only the UN Commission, but also all human rights organizations, has to do with the actual practice of gross human rights violations by a nation that survives on its Public Relations skills. Think what would happen to Sharon's agenda of dispossessing Palestinians of their land. If most Americans listened to Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch would they permit a $5 billion annual subsidy by the US? How could Israel continue its current policies?

How could they continue to tractor those Palestinian folks out with the Cats (or Caterpillar tractors, as my buddy Muley would put it) if Americans actually knew people were being dispossessed of their land and homes, simply because they were Palestinian?

No wonder the defenders of the old order are afraid. Perhaps people may start listening. Maybe its already happening every day, growing bit by bit.

"has to do with the actual practice of gross human rights violations"

the article was talking about relatively....israel in the world. Would you like to compare israel to dafur? interms of human right violations?...how about to Saudi Arabia?

shall we make a chart?

Let's go back and look at draft SC resolutions concerning Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories and count how many the US has vetoed. After all, it's the SC resolutions that really matter, not the GA, which is just a forum for making lots of noise and producing lots of paperwork...

I'm not sure where you are trying to take yr argument. Is the argument that since you feel that Israel is 'picked on' that a 'hey, but they do it too!' defence is a good one? Or that Israel isn't in fact committing violations of international humanitarian law and we should all ignore the resolutions concerning the occupation?

Violet...

israel doesnt exist in a vacuum..nor does the UN.....crimes are relative to their environment and period in time. Thats what the article is about


as far as the chart goes:

i'm game: we'll be comparing crimes against the local populations....(not resolutions or other "political mumbo jumbo)

things like murders,mass killings, detention without trial, disapperances, rapes, land grabs, freedom to speak out



btw i dont count dictatorships as having any rights whatsoever in terms of judging other countries as i see them as having stolen the countries from the rightful owners.

It's relative, meaning that if someone somewhere does something worse, then the lesser crime is okay?

Here's a link to the long and exhaustive list of security council resolutions that the US has vetoed (usually it's the sole negative vote).

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

Can you go through them and explain what they're supposed to be relative to, and why they should have been vetoed?

Violet....

...only when the dictatorships no longer have voting rights on issues of human rights/security etc will the UN have any kind of standing within those realms.

When syria or saudi arabia condem israel on human rights issue....the only sane reaction can be one of a joke...neither of those countries, nor iran, nor pakistan have any right to condem israel on the issue of human rights or security issues.

judging israel can be done only from democracies where the values are relativly the same, where the issues are looked at from the various sides and only then can there be condemnation or not


_________________________
that list is a joke...."condeming israel for invading lebanon" for example....yet i dont believe i ever heard of condeming lebanon for letting katushas crash into israels northern cities....its called balance and being relative to the environment.

dictatorships dont bother with such details as balance, examing the issues etc, hence they should have no part in a democractic process that the UN is supposed to represent...

Using yr 'logic' on who can criticise who for human rights abuses, then Israel daring to crticise any other country for human rights abuses is also a complete joke. Or is Israel immune from this logic?

No, Pelsar. That list is NOT a joke. Do you think it's acceptable that Israel invaded Lebanon? Or that it's only acceptable if someone else is criticised for something else to even it out?

Violet...

actions are relative: killing maybe bad..but in self defense its allowed. Stealing may be a crime, but stealing a car to save someones life is different than robbing an elderly person....hence crimes are relative to their environment and are judged by the values of that same environment.

the question if israel is bad or not has to be looked at within the context of a country involved in a low level war: The question is also what do other WESTERN countries do in circumstances that may, though may not mimic it, but have some correlation: There are only so many realistic options for those who have to make real choices.

some other examples of democracies in action:

US is attacked and promtly goes and destroys two countries on the other side of the world.

France does nothing with internal riots and has 3 weeks of rioting and 1,000's of cars burned and other properties.

England not just shoots the wrong guy, but promises they might do it again (and they also had assinations, detentions etc during their fight with the IRA)

Russia (well not really western) actually and really carpet bombs villages....

etc.

all of a sudden israel doesnt look so bad, its not carpet bombing anybody, its didnt use napalm (or its newer version in jenin), didnt use artillary on gaza, doesnt go about shooting the wrong guy and saying: shucks..we might just do it again....doesnt let billions of private property be destroy..in fact israels methods may in fact prove to be the most measured of a democracy involved in a war....

and thats the key word.....israel is involved in a low level war, hence any condemnation that doesnt take that into account or offer realistic alternatives has no real meaning.

(in this particular instances I'm not talking about the settlements as i think that is a seperate issue involving condemnations etc)

Artillery on Gaza -

'Wednesday, 28 September 2005

Israel launches fresh Gaza raids

Israel has launched more air strikes against the Gaza Strip, at sites it said were linked to militant groups.

Missiles struck buildings in Gaza City, knocking out power nearby, and in a refugee camp in central Gaza. Artillery was also used for the first time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4288384.stm

__________________

'shooting the wrong guy' -

>>Imad Abu Zahra;

Imad Abu Zahra, a 34-year-old Palestinian freelance writer and photographer, was shot by the Israeli military on July 12, 2002, while taking photos in his West Bank hometown of Jenin. He sustained massive blood loss from his gunshot wound and died within hours after the shooting.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/israel.palestine/update.html



>>Brian Avery;

'U.S. Peace Activist Brian Avery Returns to Israel Two Years After Being Shot in the Face


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/25/1455249



>>Nazeh Darwazeh;

'Cameraman Under The Streetlamp

April 23, 2003

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=3504



>>Iain Hook;

'Israel admits killing British UN worker

Saturday, 23 November, 2002

The Israeli army (IDF) has acknowledged that its troops shot dead a British UN worker during an Israeli raid on a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank city of Jenin on Friday

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2507105.stm



>>Tom Hurndall;

Obituary
Tom Hurndall

An aspiring photojournalist and committed peace activist

Carl Arrindell
Thursday January 22, 2004
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,1128176,00.html



'Take No Prisoners - The Fatal Shooting of Palestinians by Israeli Forces During Arrest Operations

During the second intifada, Israel formally adopted a policy of assassinating Palestinians suspected of membership in armed organizations waging battle against it. In an attempt to counter the sharp criticism against this policy, Israel argued, among other things, that targeted assassinations were only carried out when it was unable to apprehend the persons targeted for assassination.

According to B’Tselem’s figures, since the beginning of 2004, Israelis security forces have killed eighty-nine Palestinians during operations that the defense establishment refers to as arrest operations. At least seventeen of the persons killed were not wanted by Israel, but were civilians who were not suspected by Israel of having committed any offense. In addition, at least forty-three of those killed were unarmed, or were not attempting to use their arms against Israeli security forces at the time they were killed. None of these cases were investigated by the Military Police investigation unit.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Publications/Summaries/200505_Take_No_Prisoners.asp


_______________

Destruction of property;

'November 2004, Summary

Through No Fault of Their Own: Israel's Punitive House Demolitions in the al-Aqsa Intifada

Principle findings:

* The Since the beginning of the al-Aqsa intifada, the IDF has demolished 628 housing units, which were home to 3,983 persons.

* These homes were demolished because of the acts of 333 Palestinians. On average, 12 innocent people lost their home for every person suspected of participation in attacks against Israelis.

* Almost half of the homes demolished (295 - 47%) were never home to anyone suspected of involvement in attacks against Israelis. As a result of these demolitions, 1,286 persons lost their homes even though according to Israeli officials they should not have been punished.

* Contrary to its argument before the High Court of Justice that prior warning is given except in extraordinary cases, B'Tselem's figures indicate that in only 3% of the cases were occupants given prior notification of the IDF's intention to demolish their home.

* Extensive destruction of property in occupied territories, without military necessity, constitutes a war crime.

Three Different Kinds of House Demolitions

Over the last four years, Israel has demolished some 4,100 Palestinian homes in the Occupied Territories. About sixty percent of the demolitions were carried out in the framework of what Israel calls "clearing operations." Some twenty-five percent were destroyed because Israel claims they were built without permit. The remaining fifteen percent were demolished as a means to punish the families and neighbors of Palestinians suspected of involvement in carrying out attacks against Israelis. These punitive demolitions are the focus of this report.

Punitive Demolitions Over the Years

Israel has demolished Palestinian houses as a punitive measure since the beginning of the occupation in 1967. The extent of such demolitions has varied over the years:

* From 1967 to the outbreak of the first intifada, in December 1987, Israel demolished or sealed at least 1,387 housing units, most in the first few years following occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

* Following the outbreak of the first intifada, Israel dramatically increased its use of house demolitions as a punishment. From 1988-1992, Israel completely demolished 431 housing units and partially demolished fifty-nine.

* From 1993 to 1997, Israel completely demolished eighteen housing units and partially demolished three units.

* From 1998 to October 2001, Israel did not demolish or seal any houses as punishment.

* In the course of the al-Aqsa intifada, Israel renewed with increased vigor its use of punitive house demolitions. As part of this policy, Israel demolished 628 homes from October 2001 to 20 September 2004. The official decision to renew the policy of punitive demolitions was made at a meeting of the Political-Security Cabinet on 31 July 2002, about nine months after the policy began in practice. This report analyzes Israel's policy during this period.

http://www.btselem.org/english/Publications/Summaries/200411_Punitive_House_Demolitions.asp

and i shall clarify...israels artillary does not target cities but open fields (slight difference for those who understand the distructive power of a 155mm shell) vs what the US did in iraq.

when the IDF kills the wrong person (happens in war zones)....no one is saying " well we might just do it again). Further more if one takes the ratio of wrong killings to the amount of suicide bombers vs the ratio in England...again the IDF comes out looking far better than other western countries.

no uncontrolled riots that last 3 weeks.....but destruction of specific homes of enemies of the state....big difference.

The idf are guilty of war crimes, any amount of trying to deny that doesn't
change the reality. Any amount of ignoring the *facts* or making claims that
are not correct does not change the reality.

'Amnesty slams Israel 'war crimes'

Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing war crimes in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The rights group's report for 2004 says Israeli forces have killed some 700 Palestinians - including 150 children - mostly in unlawful circumstances.

The report lists "reckless shooting, shelling and air strikes in civilian areas... and excessive use of force".

It also condemns the killing of Israeli civilians by Palestinian militants and violence by Jewish settlers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4580139.stm

the subject at hand is the UNs extensive focus on israel at the expense of attention to other conficted areas....i.e. relative violence.

and if you would like, an extension of that to the comparison of the IDF to other armies in similar situations.....i.e. a COMPARISON

but it is germane to the question of whether the UN is judging Israel fairly or not.

Maybe if I was shown a bunch of resolutions that were totally unfair, I'd agree, but I've yet to be shown anything like that...

Violet...

The death penalty has recently been discussed here, in the context of the executions of Stanly Williams and Nguyen Tuong Van. One of the criticisms against the death penalty in the US is that it's unfairly applied - that someone convicted of killing a white victim is more likely to be sentanced to death than if the victim is black.

Would you agree that this claim is coorect (assuming the statistics are true) - i.e., that it shows the death penalty is unfairly applied?

Would you're answer change if you were sure that every one of the killers of white victims deserved the death penalty, regardless of the punishment for killers of blacks?

Because this is the same situation. I'm not saying here that the UN resolutions, taken individually, are necessarily unfair to Israel - though i might note that in years of attacks, there are almost no resolutions condemning the actions of Arab nations against Israel (instead, condemnations are issued against Israel when it retaliates) - but the pattern where Israel is repeatedly condemned while other countries get away with far worse acts shows that the UN (the SC and especially the GC) are biased in their approach.

Not to be difficult, but being anti death penalty, my argument is always that it should never happen under any circumstances, and the unfair application argument misses the point that it should never happen....

No, I don't think it is the same situation because that same argument could have been used by advocates of Apartheid in South Africa back when there was a bunch of resolutions about the situation there...

Violet...

and you know what? Loathsome as Apartheid was, they would have had a point. The UN is supposed to treat all member-nations equally, not just the popular causes.

Besides, the situation of Israel, both vis-a-vis the UN and in general, is quite different then SA's; again, I refer you to the UN's utter inability to condemn anti-Israeli violence.

Don't you think what he was getting at was that stealing a car is a lesser crime than a homicide? But stealing car is still a crime.
By the way I hope those race riots going on in your neck of the woods are settling down.

And I'd much rather pelsar explain what he thinks to me than have you do it for him, thanks anyway...

What race riots?

against Palestinians or the PA (other than they do not constitute a state) for shooting rockets into Israel, for suicide bombings in Israel, for other bombings in Israel,etc.

Maybe that's why the US vetoes many resolutions against Israel.


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/israel_un.html
The American Veto
Many people believe the United States can always be relied upon to support Israel with its veto in the UN Security Council. The historical record, however, shows that the U.S. has often opposed Israel in the Council.

In 1990, for example, Washington voted for a Security Council resolution condemning Israel's handling of the Temple Mount riot earlier that month. While singling out “the acts of violence committed by Israeli security forces,” the resolution omitted mention of the Arab violence that preceded it.

In December 1990, the U.S. went along with condemning Israel for expelling four leaders of Hamas, an Islamic terrorist group. The deportations came in response to numerous crimes committed by Hamas against Arabs and Jews, the most recent of which had been the murders of three Israeli civilians in a Jaffa factory several days earlier. The resolution did not say a word about Hamas and its crimes. It described Jerusalem as “occupied” territory, declared that Palestinians needed to be “protected” from Israel and called on contracting parties of the Geneva Convention to ensure Israel's compliance. It was the first time the Security Council invoked the Convention against a member country.

In January 1992, the U.S. supported a one-sided resolution condemning Israel for expelling 12 Palestinians, members of terrorist groups that were responsible for perpetrating violence against Arab and Jew alike. The resolution, which described Jerusalem as “occupied” territory, made no mention of the events that triggered the expulsions — the murders of four Jewish civilians by Palestinian radicals since October snip

And plenty of them express concerns with both 'sides'. Or isn't this considered good enough for some?

Also, some bizarre percieved sense of unfairness doesn't excuse what is an abuse of it's veto power.

Just curious, but do you think any of the resolutions that contain criticism of Israel or any of the vetoed ones are unfair?

Violet...

"good enough".

The resolutions condemning Israeli actions are invariable harsher in wording (i.e. resolutions condemning Israel "condemn", while those against both sides merely "show concern"), and the UN doens't seem to be able to bring itself to condemn the Palestinians* by name, even that of organizations, always opting rather for the amorphous "both sides".

*applies also to Hizbullah

And it was Palestine that was carrying out a long-term belligerant occupation of Israel...

Violet..

carte blanche? You know better than that.

Since your statement seems to imply they would be condemned otherwise, should I take it you agree with me they're not being condemned now?

And were Egypt and Jordan and Syria occupied by Israel, when their attacks on Israel went uncondemned?

As for HR organizations - I've noticed the tend to suffer from a fom of tunnel vision - IHL must be upheld in its strictest interpretation, and the circumstances be damned. For example, see AI's response to the assassination of Yassin. They deplored Israel's killing him and maintained he should have been arrested and tried - totally disregarding the fact that any attempt to do so would have inevitably entailed dozens of Palestinian casualties (and likely some Israeli ones).

Again, rockets launched into Israel seems to be "no problema" for the SC. Oh, and I think five went flying into Israel just yesterday. Do you think there will be a UN resolution against the Palestinians on that? I bet you won't hold your breath waiting for the SC on that. If there were UN resolutions against the Palestinians for the rockets and suicide bombers, there would be hundreds of UN resolutions against the Palestinians.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

which are inherently unjust because of the one-sidedness and partiality. It's too bad you don't keep a count of the number of rockets being shot into Israel. But who said I keep a count again? The UN should be looking at violations of all parties, which I am sure you would like to see happen.

The SC never thinks to do a resolution on them. Arab attacks on Israel? The UN SC does zip; no resolutions. Have you ever noticed that?

Zero....

Why the defensiveness? Is it because Israel's human rights record is indefensible?

Is this the standard Israel uses? "We are nicer than Dafur?"

Is this the standard the US should use when it appropriates military aid?

The UN has limited resources it cant be everywhere and do everything...so it must allocate and put those resources to use in the most efficient way to save the most lives....

there are other countries where there is far more killing, far more violence be in within failed states or between states. It is there where the limited resources should be spent. By giving the israeli/palestenain conflict resources and time that is far beyond its relative violence, the UN is condeming other peoples (dafur) to a far worser fate than the palestenains are now going through.

thats the result of the lopsided voting and time spent on the issue

Anyone with eyes can see this complaint is just a way to excuse Israel and its system of oppression, and not a concern about human rights of others or misplaced resources.

Not going to work.

...it is not an excuse for anything, it is a glaring spotlight on the systematic anti-Israeli attitudes of the UN, some of it based in systematic anti-Semitism.

"All are equal, but some are more equal than others."

is the same as any racism - attributing characteristics and behaviour to a whole 'race' of people, generally to criminalise and isolate such groups to make them easier to attack.

Anti-Zionism is concerned with opposing the idea of a 'greater Israel' that involves dispossessing the original occupants of the land.

Zionists practice their own form of racism against Palestinians - 'if they can't run Gaza how could they cope with a state?' for example, in order to justify their own attacks.

A growing Zionist tactic is to conflate the two anti's so that anti-Zionists are called anti-semites. This is an utterly dishonest tactic particularly when it is levelled against people who have stood shoulder to shoulder with those being attacked by fascists, including jews, as most anti-Zionists have. That's because anti-fascists are usually anti-Zionists. The two things are historically linked as, indeed are nazism and Zionism.

See this for more details on this unholy alliance:

http://www.counterpunch.org/brenner1223.html

Since when are Nazism and Zionism linked? Oh brother. This article CAN'T be taken seriously, I can't believe you've posted it.

Antizionism, in its purest sense, means anti-Israelism. Can you seriously tell me that this isn't antisemitic? Or that Zionism is FACISM? There are some forms of Zionism, religious Zionism for example, which you might not understand and with which you might not agree. They are some settlers whose behavior is utterly beyond the Pale, who have hurt innocent people; they're wrong and they should be in jail.

But to condemn the entire philosophy and the entire state of Israel, the philosophy of the Israel as the Jewish national home - as "fascism" - is beyond innacurate.

It's racist in and of itself. It's an insult to history as well as to the Jewish and to the Israeli people. I don't believe my eyes.

Also I don't think it's insane to wonder, if you have to live next door to somebody, how they're going to run their house. Gaza is an opportunity for the Palestinians to prove they CAN run an orderly, peaceful state. If instead civil war, anarchy and more attacks erupt, that isn't a good sign and it isn't FASCIST to say so. It's sane.

It is not at all racist to describe Israel as a racist state. Did you think opponents of apartheid were racist? After all their 'philosophy' included the idea of southern Africa as a 'national home' for white dutch people. Israelis think of Palestinian land as a 'national home' for them.

The criticism of Palestinian control of the PA is racist because it implies that ordered society and government is beyond the powers of Palestinian people - ignoring the occupation and constant destruction of infrastructure, security forces, leaders etc. It is like saying 'these slaves can't be trusted to run their own lifes if they were free' without mentioning the shakles, whips, rape etc.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

too lazy to dig beyond the most "popular" blogs

too lazy to get to a library and read
to lazy to think, compare, contrast, analyze
ALL OF THOSE THINGS A "LIBERAL" EDUCATION SUPPOSED TO INSTILL

and then they post - and remove all doubts.

OCCASIONAL attempt to do a little more than read and trying some empathy.

The violence of the 19th and 20th centuries was absolutely off the charts. It wasn't long ago yet people seem to have forgotten about it already, and sit safely in their nice homes pontificating and calling the victims of extermination, racists for wanting to survive.

And that means "survive" in the most basic sense, as in "staying alive".

Somehow they have confused this desperate attempt to rescue a few people and somehow live with a shred of dignity, with the adventures of the British Empire, with the racism of South Africa. Somehow they have confused attempts by 1930's Zionists to rescue people from the Nazis, with sympathy for the Nazis or similarity to their philosophy.

That blows my mind.

Notably, many of these wise pontiffs admire individuals who think the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein were great, compassionate institutions, who embodied progressive virtues. Worse, many apparently believe it would be a great, progressive idea to exterminate the nation that rose, by some miracle, from the ashes of disaster.

HELLO? Does anybody see anything bizarre about this picture?

While it's inaccurate to do so when speaking of the situation in Israel itself, it is not at all inacccurate to do so when speaking of the situation in the West Bank. Also, another correction: the West Bank is occupied territory, it is not disputed, as there is no dispute at all that it is occupied territory that Israel has no claim of sovereignty over...

When speaking about Israel's inclusiveness, I probably tend to steer away from gushiness, as Israel's had similar problems to other states when it comes to different ethnic groups. There's been direct and indirect discrimination against Jews from Arab states, as well as Israeli-Arabs, just to name two groups....

Historically, the entire Palestine Mandate was to have been the Jewish national home.

Uh, no it wasn't....

In spite of that war wasn't inevitable.

Sorry, but the war of 1948 was something that was inevitable...

The fact that the Jewish people are being singled out as racist BY SO-CALLED PROGRESSIVES, instead of being protected from enormous MAJORITIES who want to wipe us out and destroy our one homeland, is actually rather breathtaking.

The poster you replied to didn't call the Jewish people racist. In fact, they called Israel racist...

Violet...

Zionism is the same theological genre as praying for the ("Second" for Xtians, "First" for the Jews) Coming of the Messiah.

This is also the origin of the ancient (post 70CE) statement "Hashanah b' Yerusahalim).

Political Zionism was the political response to such minor historical events as the Council of Nice, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the never-ending Pogroms, the kidnapping and forced conversion of Edgardo Mortara, l'affaire Dreyfus, the Numerous Clausus, etc., etc., etc.

...is disguising anti-Semitic attitudes and beliefs as simply anti-Israeli.

or are you simply, inadvertently, underlining my point that criticism of Israel is deliberately misinterpreted as anti-semitism? If people really were attacking Israel because of anti-semitism and not because of the continued criminality and oppression of Zionism you would have no trouble finding evidence. Google is there to help you.

I'm a UK socialist - you could check the voluminous archives we socialists have made publically available on the internet to support your claim. You won't find any anti-semitism, though you will find plenty of criticism of Israel. Ask me for links if you would care to take me up.

I'm not an anti-semite and I would prefer to be able to discuss Israel's criminality without being accused of it, thanks very much. I've fought in the street against real anti-semites, and even though I'm getting older I'd do it again at the drop of a hat.

This is the tradition I'm from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cable_Street

I was an active, organising member of the Anti-Nazi League from its birth and took part in the Rock Against Racism movement - both these organisations were responsible for the defeat of the Nazi National Front in the UK in the '70's and '80's.

To suggest that we have all become anti-semites is really insulting and a measure of the lengths Zionists are willing to adopt to avoid criticism of Israel - including attacking the people who have, and would again, defend jews from racist, fascist and nazi attacks.

if you belive that...than you know very little of what zionism is ....more so its a very hypocritical view to disallow a society its historical/cultural homeland, while allowing others theres....

as it is referred to by Zionists, is racist in that it restrict citizenship rights according to 'racial' terms. The idea of maintaining a jewish majority is a constant theme in Israeli politics and is what gives rise to the citizenship discrimination.

This is pretty undeniable so I can't really see how you can object to equating Zionism with an anti-Arab racism.

'.more so its a very hypocritical view to disallow a society its historical/cultural homeland, while allowing others theres....'

I agree - that would be hypocritical - and I would wish that Israelis would accept that the Palestinians have a right to a home as well.

so which groups do you "not allow their historical homeland"...shall i make a list of peoples who no longer have theirs.

Google is your friend, as well.

To pretend that all criticism of Israel is simply against its government is simply ludicrous. What I find even more interesting is that the first claims fired are those crying "we can't say anything about Israel." Clearly this is not even close to being true, yet it gets said here all the time.

You can discuss Israeli criminality, and I will continue to discuss Palestinian criminality and corruption. If you can be a non-anti-Semite and discuss Israel, then I, and others, can be non-Islamaphobes and discuss the PA, despite the fact that you equate Zionism with racism, thereby calling all Zionists racists, without having to say it directly.

"Jew" and "Jewish" are capitalized.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

zionism is simply the returning of jews to their historical homeland...just like the palestenains in refugee camps have a right to return to their homeland, so too do the jews....same exact thing...unless there is a statue of limitations on ones culture...i.e racisim in prefering ones right to their homeland over someone elses.

'if they can't run Gaza how could they cope with a state?' for example, in order to justify their own attacks.

guess you should do some reading about failed societies and their consequences...but not only that...you should try answering the question, unless you think its irrelevant...meaning the actual lives of the palestenains are irrelevant to you. (i think some of the palestenians however might disagree....)

of course i could suggest some reading on "groups" those that succeed and those that fail....unless the application of socities and group dynamics dont apply to the palestenians.....or are deemed irrelvant (i know some israelis living next to gaza that might not agree however....)

the repressive and violent control of Israel you would possibly have a point. But they aren't so you don't - if Palestine is a mess, it's because of Israeli action as much as the corruption in Fatah and the PA. You can't separate the two. How could someone like you or I, if we were Palestinians, effect change in the PA with Israel planes creating sonic booms, and Israeli artillery and tanks attacking us and our children?

But for someone to suggest that there is something inherent in Palestinians that prevents them from creating an orderly society then that is racism pure and simple.

There is nothing genetic that i know of that would make the palestenains on a individual level any "less" than anybody else. Nor was there anything in my high school that made the class next ours both rowdy and unteachable..yet it was.

My eyes are not closed to how different cultures and groups operate, are yours?. I have no idea if the palestenain society is capable at this point of governing itself...all i can do is look at gaza...and it doesnt look very good.

perhaps you need a list of failed societies and other groups to understand that there are differences...and those different traits are exactly that?...or are you one of those that believe the taliban and the present iranian govt are govts that are "best " for those societies? (shall we ask the women ?)


Israel is not in gaza, israel left remember?...Corruption is the PAs business nothing to do with israel....as hamas is considered free of corruption (is that too israels fault?). The blame israel for everything that happens to the palesteanisn is getting rather old. Palestenian politics is very much their own...alive, vibrant, corrupt, etc...they create their own parties, make their own changes, blaming israel for palestenain politics is pathetic. Israel affects them, as much as they affect israel, no more an no less.

Israel left gaza, if the palestenains would learn stop trying to kill israelis from gaza, perhaps israel would stop attacking gaza..they should try it. Israel made the first move, the response was 30 missles...if the palestenians cant do anything about it...its their society that has to be blamed not israel.

at somepoint in time the palestenians and their cheerleaders are going to have to say, that palestenain society is responsable for the actions of its own society...and that includes shooting missles at israeli cities....maybe then there will be a chance for peace...but thats the first step for the palestenians....its their turn in gaza to prove they can actually develop a society....as opposed to war lords.

and the disorder in Palestine yet you say

'My eyes are not closed to how different cultures and groups operate, are yours?. I have no idea if the palestenain society is capable at this point of governing itself...all i can do is look at gaza...and it doesnt look very good.'

Just replace the words Palestinian and Gaza with others....you choose....and see how it looks then.

Please enlighten me to the specific nature of the Palestinian 'culture' and 'group operation' and what it leads to.

Surely you should be aware of the historical resonances of such phrases?

sure i am aware of the implications of wondering if the palestenian society is capable of this poing of devising a society based on civil rights, women rights etc......

just because i refuse to bow down to the god of PC doesnt mean its wrong (your words: "see how it looks"). So far the palestenain culture, what were seeing in gaza is multiple groups refusing to play by the rules of a 'pseudo democratic" environment. Shooting up polls (in the westbank too), police officials shot up in day light military operations.

S. Gaza is run by families, not the PA, the PA cant control its western/northern borders and has missles flying in to israel everyday, tunnels still being dug, this time into israel

Freedom of the press, never a strong point is now completly controlled within the gaza, with very little info coming out. Abba has now reinstated the paying of suicide bombers and their families....an endorsment of the method for killing israeli civilians, an endorsement of his lack of control

palestenians attempting to swim from gaza to israeli...again no control over their own borders. Unlike syrian, jordanian and egyptian borders, the PA is not making a serious attempt to control its borders...because they cant.

shall we look at other failed societies and pretend that they really arent that? I noticed that you didnt comment on that?
lets try again:

taliban, iran, algeria, zimbabwa, liberia, american indians with the white US culture etc

if you accept that "groups" and societies are different, then their is also the recognition that some are better at certain things than others. (I admit that i would be shocked if even that you didnt admit to that).

and if you admit that....then there is no reason while looking at the PA today, and wondering if they are headed for a facist dicatatorship, devoid of human rights (as in iran) or not...nor is that "hearsay"

prevent me from fully expressing my feelings of contempt for racists and supremecists.

So I'm just putting you on ignore from now on.

but perhaps thats part of the characteristic of the middle east conflict:

"i dont understand your viewpoint, hence i will call your a racist and ignore you"

it those of us who, though not completly understanding the "otherside" are willing to talk it out, find some points were we agree and take it from there....and it those of us who are willing to talk it out, that will be those that solve the problems.

interesting side note: i've had far more interesting conversations with palestenains...and we've found far more in common, and what to discuss than i usually do with many "who are pro-palestenian" from europe...but then we understand the conflict from a more practical point of view.

______________________________________________
as far as Gazas and the PA ability to govern:
n a critical escalation of the state of insecurity in the OPT, a family dispute in Gaza has resulted in 5 dead and 30 injured, among them 8 children and 2 women.....

Al Mezan expresses its sincere sorrow over the loss of these victims. In addition, the Centre condemns the heightening levels of insecurity and the PNA's incapability to put an end to such feuds which are encouraging citizens to disrespect the law and take it into their own hands.

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=9072&CategoryId=2

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you are effectively saying that some groups of people are unable to construct ordered societies.. to that i say yes:.... But i am in good company as the whole profession of anthropololgy and sociology study exactly that.

either you believe theres a thing called group dynamics and cultural traits or you dont. If you dont, i would suggest you take a look any sports club and wonder why some succeed and some dont. If you do believe there is such a thing, you'll have to explain how you believe that some groups "cant fail"....(i'm sure many companies and businesses would love to hear your fool proof explanation.)

as far as the palestenains go....
i wouldnt say its genetic i would say its more social and cultured oriented. The palestenains are a social/cultural group with specific aspects to them. The occupation is only part of their culture. For instance the occupation has nothing to do with the PAs corruption (or so claim the younger fatah members). The occupation has nothing to do with their honor killings nor dragging bodies in the streets. Those aspects are more prevalent in arab/islamic societies, of which they are a part of.

The palestenians may yet make a civil oriented society....but they may not...just becuase some liberal elites believe its in their best interests (as they did during the iranian revolution) doesnt mean its going to happen...

why do you believe so?

failed societies exist and have always exisited, many are no longer here precisly because they failed...just because the palestenains are living under parital occupation doesnt mean they can make and develop a modern society.....why do you believe such a thing is inevitable...

btw you still never did reply to my questions if you believe that iran, the taliban, zimbabwa, liberai are examples of "non failed societies"

answer that and we'll move on to the chances of the palestenians of making a society whos base is in civil rights, or if you even consider that relevant (one of the posters here prefers a "strong man")

i plead guilty to that: i believe that the liberal western system of governing is superior to other forms, especially those that place women in potatoe sacks, hang 13 yr olds for having big mouths, hang gays for being gay, stone to death women who were raped etc.

i believe that all forms of dictatorships, are inherently evil, and have no right to rule. Those govt that have "moral squads" that roam the streets, enter peoples houses to make sure people are behaving "moral' have a special place in the "evilness" of theocratic govts.

those govts have stolen the country from the people and have absolutly no right to represent them in any world forum...they should be ostracized as much as possible by democratic govts..which by the way is far more than mere voting but includes the basic civil rights package as well.

more so "liberals" who support facist govts with their required secret services to keep the population in line, their lack of freedom of the press, their non existent civil rights have values that mimic the far right.

:boring:

<>I shall return the favour

which means you place the palestenians and their problems, which they are partially responsable for above and beyond the massive killings/rapes in dafur,civil rights violations in saudi arabia, iran, Rwanda, etc

nice set of values....

the human rights violations to which you allude. And it is meaningless to judge Israel if you are not also going to judge the people who are attacking her people. "Oppression" works both ways. Not mentioning the war, as Pelsar points out, misses the point of the situation completely.

And, we're not talking just one war but several, and terrorism that has been virtually constant for decades, though it has in fact racheted upwards severely since the Oslo Accords were signed.

If terror attacks don't constitute human rights violations, I don't know what does.

Other aspects of life on the West Bank, for example, have arisen in response to the intifida(s). Road blocks, the fence - none of this existed prior to this war - and it IS a war and more has been promised. Meanwhile, human rights violations within the Palestinian Authority, such as the murders of "collaborators", honor killings and miscellaneous violence that, this year, actually claimed more Palestinian lives than the war with Israel, are actually quite severe and have been duly noted by human rights groups - but not by the UN.

That hardly suggests balance even within the limited sphere of I/P, let alone in comparison with the behavior of other democracies OR the nations, for instance, of the Arab League (which includes the Sudan).

So I think something is clearly wrong with this picture and no amount of one-sided Israel bashing is going to change THAT.

This is a WAR ZONE. That is the only proper way to judge
the human rights violations to which you allude.

but then you contradict what you said by saying: 'Meanwhile, human rights violations within the Palestinian Authority, such as the murders of "collaborators", honor killings and miscellaneous violence...'

So, why shouldn't human rights violations carried out by the Palestinians be judged in the same proper way that you say we should judge human rights violations carried out by Israel?

btw, yr incorrect about the UN not mentioning violence carried out by Palestinians towards other Palestinians. It's actually one of those reports by the human rights groups you talk about that mentions it :)

Violet...

Violet...

there's a difference between HR violations carried out in the context of military/security operations* and HR violations unrelated to such operations, even if both occur in a war zone. I doubt anywone would seriously suggest honor killings serve some military need?

*As I pointed out elswhere, many of the clauses of IHL allow exceptions in case of military necessity

Which is why I didn't even come close to suggesting that honour killings serve some military need. Also, can you explain how 'miscellaneous violence' and 'the murder of "collaborators"' are not in the context of military/security operations? Or is it just Israel that has military/security operations?

I know you've pointed out elsewhere that there are some exceptions made in the case of military necessity, but yr idea of military necessity and that of myself and many human rights organisations differ...

Violet...

Please don't pretend otherwise.

is the vioence needed in the context of a military operation or not? murder of collaborators doesn't meet that standard, for instance.

there's a difference between HR violations carried out in the context of military/security operations* and HR violations unrelated to such operations, even if both occur in a war zone. I doubt anywone would seriously suggest honor killings serve some military need?

*As I pointed out elswhere, many of the clauses of IHL allow exceptions in case of military necessity

human rights within the PA.

Have they passed any resolutions?

And since when does terrorism - deliberate attacks on INNOCENT CIVILIANS - constitute an acceptable form of warfare?

If you are going to follow this line then you can't complain about ANY human rights violations, period.

If the Palestinians have open season on Israeli civilians, including pregnant women and babies in their father's arms, buses, shopping malls and fruit markets, then we should stop hearing any and all complaints about Israel, and just declare that we have a total war and that might makes right, period. In fact, people should stop complaining about that bombing of the wedding in Amman because after all, war is hell.

People shouldn't complain about Bali, Indonesia, the Phillipines, London, Spain, Africa, New York, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon - after all - WAR IS HELL.

So what the hey. Kaboom.

That is not the way the Israelis have been trying to conduct this war. In 60 years, fewer people have died in this conflict than Saddam killed in an afternoon. They TRY to target militants and - hello - open fields.

Obviously innocents get hurt too, most by accident and bad luck - but THAT IS NOT THE OBJECT. It is the object of terror.

If it were, they'd have borrowed some B-52's from the US and carpet bombed the area. Boom. End of problem.

But that isn't the case, is it?

...of warfare. I was pointing out the contradictions in the logic you used in yr post. At no point did I express my own opinion, which is why I don't understand why you asked this question in response to it: 'And since when does terrorism - deliberate attacks on INNOCENT CIVILIANS - constitute an acceptable form of warfare?' You seem to be taking the point I made about the logic you used, and turning it round and replying as though it was my logic...

Yr argument seems to be that Israel is excused from the blame for committing any human rights violations against the Palestinians because it's a war zone and war is hell, but you then turn around in the next breath and argue that Palestinians are to blame for committing human rights violations against other Palestinians (eg killing of collaborators) and don't use the same excuse that it's a war zone and war is hell...

Violet...

The second part of yer case flatly contradicts the 1st part-
To paraphrase;

-War is hell, except when Israel does it. *They* are evil. *We* are not, even when guilty of the same offenses. When *we* kill innocents, it's unintentional. When *they* do it, it's deliberate.-

Here's a, hopefully, educational report from HRW;

'Promoting Impunity
The Israeli Military’s Failure to Investigate Wrongdoing

Summary

In May 2005, an Israeli military court convicted a soldier of “severe intentional harm” to a civilian and sentenced him to twenty months in prison. The soldier was charged with shooting an unarmed Palestinian man in the southern Gaza town of Rafah in October 2003. This was, as the Israeli daily Ha’aretz observed, “the harshest punishment imposed on an IDF soldier in the four and a half years of fighting in the territories.”1

That same month, on May 19, 2005, the IDF announced that it had opened a Military Police (mezah) investigation into the May 4 shooting deaths of two Palestinian teenagers in the West Bank town of Beit Lakia. The teenagers were among a large group that reportedly threw stones at bulldozers Israel was using to construct a metal and concrete barrier, or wall, in the West Bank.2 The IDF had suspended the officer who opened fire the day after the incident. As one experienced journalist wrote, “Such a swift acknowledgement by the military of improper behavior in the fatal shooting of Palestinians is rare.”3

It remains unclear if these two developments represent a change in IDF policies regarding unlawful use of force resulting in deaths and serious injury to Palestinian civilians. Those policies until now have been characterized by inaction and cover-up. Such a change would therefore be most welcome.

In recent months several high-profile killings have drawn Israeli and international attention to the army’s failure to conduct thorough and impartial investigations where there is credible evidence of unlawful use of force against civilians—none more so than the October 5, 2004, incident in which Givati Brigade soldiers shot a thirteen-year-old Gaza schoolgirl. An internal IDF debriefing immediately after the incident found that the company commander had “not acted unethically.”4 Fellow soldiers then released a communications tape to the media showing that another soldier had warned the commander that the victim was “a little girl.” The tape recorded the commander saying, “Anything that’s mobile, that moves in the zone, even if it’s a three-year-old, needs to be killed.”5 On the tape he also states that he “confirmed the kill” by firing at the girl’s body at close range. The IDF responded by opening a Military Police investigation that yielded a five-count indictment against the commander, but the charges did not include murder or manslaughter.6 The commander’s trial was still ongoing as of this writing in early June 2005.7

Between September 29, 2000, and November 30, 2004, more than 1600 Palestinian civilians not involved in hostilities, including at least 500 children, were killed by Israeli security forces, and thousands more were seriously injured.8 The IDF informed Human Rights Watch that as of May 10, 2004, it had criminally investigated just seventy-four alleged cases of unlawful use of lethal force, less than 5 percent of the civilian deaths in nearly four years of what is commonly known as the al-Aqsa intifada, or uprising.9 As of June 6, 2005, the IDF had not responded to a February 2005 request for updated information on indictments and convictions since its May 2004 communication.

http://hrw.org/reports/2005/iopt0605/index.htm

<1> Amos Harel, “Soldier who fired at unarmed Palestinian sentenced to 20 months in prison,” Ha’aretz, May 18, 2005 . According to the statement on the IDF website, the maximum prison sentence for inflicting “severe intentional harm” is twenty years (“IDF Soldier Convicted in Rafah Incident,” available at www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?si=EN&id=7&clr=1&docid=39891.EN).

<2> Amos Harel and Arnon Regular, “Beit Latakia boys killed in IDF ambush, Palestinians claim,” Ha’aretz, May 20, 2005 . Harel and Regular wrote in conclusion: “The Beit Lakia incident is not unusual. Every day, soldiers and border police officers operate in some 15 villages near this section of the separation fence, sometimes without either crowd control equipment or clear rules of engagement. Since work on that section of the fence began, at least 10 Palestinians have been killed during protests against it, including eight children. Dozens of others have been injured, some by live fire.”

<3> Joel Greenberg, “Israel suspends officer in killings of 2 Palestinian teens,” Chicago Tribune, May 6, 2005 .

<4> IDF Official Website, “Investigation into the incident in which a 13-year-old girl was killed near an outpost on the Israeli-Egyptian border,” October 15, 2004, available at http://www1.idf.il/DOVER/site/mainpage.asp?clr=1&sl=EN&id=7&docid=34453.

<5> A portion of the transcript of the radio communication appeared in the May 2005 issue of Harper’s Magazine, p.19.

<6> The charges were: two counts of illegal use of weapons, obstructing justice, unbecoming behavior, and the improper use of authority that endangered others (Margot Dudekevitch, “Officer indicted for killing girl,” The Jerusalem Post, November 23, 2004). Ha’aretz reported in March that “the trial seems to be more focused on the Military Police’s investigation and the Judge Advocate General’s handling of the case than on R.’s behavior. And irrespective of how the judges rule on whether R. did use his weapon illegally, did try to obstruct justice and other behavior unbecoming an officer, the case has already been very unflattering to the MPs and the JAG officers.” See, Amos Harel, “Case of Capt. R casts a shadow over the Military Police,” Ha’aretz, March 21, 2005 .

<7> The al-Hams family and the Public Committee against Torture in Israel (PCATI) petitioned Israel’s High Court of Justice in January requesting that the investigation be turned over to civilian authorities, and that it also address command responsibility for open-fire orders. In February the court declined to halt the military trial; the next hearing on the petition is scheduled for October 2005.

they attack Israel gratuitously, but ignore Darfur. The author states (in case you didn't read the full article) that there is nothing wrong with legitimate criticism of Israel.

Why do you think they focus on Israel so much. Why do you think they ignore Darfur?

the subject is where are the limited UN resources best spent....(time and money)

but the question still stands: why israel and not darfur?

deals with the UN

the Middle East, which petrodollars then go to fund the purchase of arms and terrorists?

I'm so pleased that you equate Israel with the Sudan and also that you believe the Israeli people should be naked in the face of all those petrodollars. Amazing.

Surely you don't mean you oppose giving aid to the people in Darfur suffering from genocide. You must mean you oppose aid to Sudan. Right?

As for aid to Israel: That aid came as a result of Israel's peace treaty with Egypt. Egypt gets around 75% of what Israel gets. If we were to break the Camp David treaty, it would certainly be cheaper, since cutting Israel's aid would also mean cutting Egypt's along with it. Talk about efficient!

Seriously though, aid to Israel is not just a free lunch to the Jews, or unqualified support, as many seem to assume. It's a condition set by an international treaty.

So, why do you think the G.A. focuses on Israel instead of all the other offenses in the world. I'm really curious to know what you make of this argument.

It is the same hypocrisy shown in the US judicial system where wealth or the color of your skin can still "get you off." But isn't it interesting, for one to point out that hypocrisy almost NO progressive or liberal would see that as trying to "excuse" crime or the guilty, but simply pointing out an injustice.

against Israel


http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/israel_un.html

snip
Debates on Israel abound, and the Council has repeatedly condemned the Jewish State. But not once has it adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of Arab attacks on Israel. What takes place in the Security Council “more closely resembles a mugging than either a political debate or an effort at problem-solving,” declared former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick.15

The Arab League contingent on the Council has been reinforced by members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and “nonaligned” governments that do not recognize Israel. Since the end of 1991, leading nonaligned nations such as India and China have established diplomatic ties with Israel; the Soviet Union, which broke off relations with the Jewish State after the Six-Day War, was replaced on the panel by Russia, which has full diplomatic relations with Israel. Though it was hoped this might result in a more balanced handling of the Arab-Israeli conflict by the Security Council, that has not been the case as Russia has continued to vote consistently against Israel.

In 2003, Israel sought to gain support for a resolution of its own, the first it had introduced since 1976. The resolution called for the protection of Israeli children from terrorism, but it did not receive enough support from the members of the General Assembly to even come to a vote. Israel had introduced the resolution in response to the murder of hundreds of Israeli children in terrorist attacks, and after a similar resolution had been adopted on November 6, 2003, calling for the protection of Palestinian children from "Israeli aggression." Israel's ambassador withdrew the proposed draft after it became clear that members of the nonaligned movement were determined to revise it in such a way that it would have ultimately been critical of Israel.16
snip

oh, and you're welcome

As this is unbiased, I will assume your sources are too. But if you might imply there is some bias, you might want to point to specific items proving it

:hi:

It wasn't some lame opinion. There's a huge difference between the two...

supposedly "biased" source and all. Or was it an "unbiased" per post 32. Or....

'Source:U.S. State Department; UN, various news sources'

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

But you can go through the list if you like, the results will probably
be the same.

:)

:hi:

of Nazi Arabs.

:)

If you don't think the sources are accurate, compare them with the records;

UN Documentation Centre.
http://www.un.org/documents/

nazi arabs?

Dr. Mitchell G. Bard

Mitchell Bard is the Executive Director of the nonprofit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) and a foreign policy analyst who lectures frequently on U.S.-Middle East policy. Dr. Bard is also the director of the Jewish Virtual Library, the world’s most comprehensive online encyclopedia of Jewish history and culture.

For three years he was the editor of the Near East Report, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) weekly newsletter on U.S. Middle East policy.

Prior to working at AIPAC, Dr. Bard served as a senior analyst in the polling division of the 1988 Bush campaign.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/mbbio.html


He's *not* biased, so *stop*saying*that!

/boudelang.

Post #33...

Violet...

That would give most folk the slight clue that it was sarcastic and the poster doesn't believe it's unbiased...

Violet...

Unbiased? Interesting claim.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

According to the principle of equality before the international law, any UN member can discuss whatever problems it has with other UN members. This is exactly what diplomacy is all about! The alternative is to separate all UN members into 2 categories - good and bad, "democracies" and "dictatorships".

The problem with this approach is that this way, the notion of "human rights" which are supposedly violated by the "dictatorships", loses any practical meaning. What happens is that both "democracies" and "dictatorships" are free to say and do whatever they want using any justification they find appropriate. In fact, all this does not need getting into the trouble of meaningful diplomatic process. As for "human rights", they simply don't fit in this system.

Now does not this explain Ahmadinejad's anti-Israeli rhetoric? Apparently, it is designed to block any HR-based discussion. That is, no equality before the international law - no HR discussions, just total cold war. Either HR based on equality - or none whatsoever, it is that simple. The UN Charter was not designed by dummies.

1. Hypocrisy alive and well at the UN: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1134473177556

The UN is in session again and a number of resolutions have been on the table. An important one dealt with human rights abuses in Darfur. But, thanks to Sudan's many allies, this resolution was expected to be defeated and removed from the agenda.

On the table were also 10 resolutions condemning Israel for human rights abuses. All of them were expected to be passed by the General Assembly.

Welcome to a typical year at the United Nations.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference — 56 Islamic states, almost 30 per cent of the UN membership — ensures that a mountain of resolutions and resources are devoted every year to demonizing Israel.

Take, for example, the UN Commission on Human Rights. In the past two years, Israel has had 101 human rights resolutions passed against it.

Of course, there are other human rights violators on the list. Let's see: Iran is a well-known human rights violator. It has had two resolutions passed against it. Syria is another. Well, it merited one resolution. Saudi Arabia is another offender, known for amputations, stonings, intolerance toward other religions, political repression, discrimination and torture. However, all this doesn't seem to bother the rights commission too much — Saudi Arabia hasn't merited any resolutions.

2. The UN Charter: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/